***UNAPPROVED***
Town of Emerald Isle
Planning Board Minutes
Regular Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2002 Chairman Phil Almeida called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.  Members present: Ann Erikson, Art Daniel, Ed Dowling, Frank Erwin, George McLaughlin and Pat Patteson.

available to answer any questions from the board.  He advised that additional ditching had been done, put in riprap, put in silt fencing, seeded, fertilized and mulched.  Did some asphalt flumes and clearing.

Frank Erwin commented that the final plat now shows a portion Osprey Ridge Drive and that the southern end adjoins a previously platted and approved subdivision.  He asked if Mr. McLean knows that the small portion before them tonight was built to current  town standards?  Mr. McLean said he could only say it was paved for a number of years and has been repaved and they have been working on the shoulders. That portion of the road is in good shape.  He believes it has been in place maybe six or seven years. 

Mr. Rush asked to comment on this and added that Mr. Spell had submitted a certified check in the amount of $3,000.00 in response to maintenance for Osprey Ridge Drive and Christina Drive.  There has been riprap placed along the bank adjacent to the pond and to stabilize that road.  It was felt that additional riprap might be necessary to further stabilize the bank. Mr. Spell intends to reshape the ditch on the west side of Osprey Ridge Dr.

Jim Taylor and Bob Conrad have visited the site and have signed off on the street construction separate from the two issues he just mentioned.

Mr. Erwin asked if the new street is done to the satisfaction of the town and be accepted at some time by the town.  Mr. Rush agreed that is correct and it must be in conjunction with the final plat.  There is language on the final plat dedicating the street to the town and the town accepting it along with the one-year maintenance.

Mr. McLean added that they are asking for recommendation of approval to the town board  ‘tonight’, not ‘at some time’. 

Mr. Dowling said referred to a letter to the engineer date Nov. 15, 2000 regarding this subdivision. The letter was in response to a request made by Mr. Almeida, chairman.  “Portion of the existing paved street, Osprey Ridge Dr., appears to be falling into the wetlands on the interior. The results in pavement failure will only deteriorate if left unattended. The most reasonable effort to strengthen this failure will be to erect a silt fence within 3 to 5 feet of the water and dump selected fill adjacent to the roadway approximately 5 to 8 feet wide. Once the fill is placed, shall be graded and sloped; the areas covered with geotextile fiber cloth.  Once the fiber cloth has been placed over the soil, it shall be covered with riprap clean wash rock to assure that no erosion is allowed. The flat selection of shoulder shall be graded, seeded and fertilized and tacked.”  He repeated that was 11/15/00 and it still we don’t see that road to satisfaction from an engineers standpoint.

Mr. McLean asked what exactly Mr. Dowling was referring to.  He asked that he be told what was needed and he will respond with what he has.

Mr. Dowling responded about the erection of the silt fence…Mr. McLean said they had erected two silt fences.

Mr. Dowling said he wanted it within 5–6 feet of the water and they are located at the top.  Mr. McLean said he wanted it at the top.

Mr. Dowling continued that they were to dump fill adjacent to the road approximately 5 to 8 feet wide.  It’s not done.  Mr. McLean said it was done. There is grass growing on the shoulders.

Mr. McLean said the textile fiber is in place under the riprap.

Mr. Dowling went on that clean washed rock is to be installed to be sure no erosion takes place.  Mr. McLean said riprap is big chunks, it is clean washed.

Mr. Dowling added that a flat section of shoulder shall be graded, seeded, fertilized, mulched and tacked.  Mr. McLean advised that all this had been done.  Mr. Dowling asked for definition of “tacked”.  Mr. McLean said it usually refers to liquid asphalt. This project they used a liquid paper based emulsion with seed in it when it is sprayed.  When it hits the ground it lays there with the cardboard holding it down which is biodegradable.

Mr. Dowling asked if any further portion of  Osprey Ridge Drive was being dedicated to the town.  Mr. McLean said only the portion delineated on the map is being dedicated with this project.

Mr. Dowling said in the subdivision he lives in, Cape Emerald on Ocean Oaks Dr., the drainage pipe that is supposed to be in the easement area or commons area. Due to oversight, that pipe was put in the roadway, not in the town easement.  As a result of that, when the pipe was cleaned out and new manholes covers put in, the road had to be torn up. You’ve got Lil’ Abner neighborhood, if he lived on that road he would be very upset. There are only 60+ neighbors, so you can’t go into litigation over it, nobody is claiming any fault.  But you have a safety fault, big indentations all along that road now, that’s been ruined.  It is a private road that should have never been invaded. 

Mr. McLean said this road under consideration this evening is not a private road.

Mr. Dowling replied that he was only relating what happened to the road after the project was completed.  The town doesn’t own it and the homeowners are stuck with it.  He would prefer to see things before this board, this is a highly professional board that we have now, all his colleagues are real professional men and he would prefer to see things everything done, a clean slate, before an applicant comes to the Planning Board.  This board is going out on the limb when they do this. This can fall right through the cracks because Bob (Conrad) is not going to be here forever.  In fact, I’m sure he’s getting ready to retire. Who is going to monitor this project?  What assurance do we have this will be followed through?

Mr. McLean asked what he was supposed to say?  The road was built the way they were told to build it.  It has compacted rock, a base that was inspected before the rock went down. It has 1 ½” asphalt which meets all the town standards.  He thinks this road is fine.

Mr. Daniel said he was disappointed in the ditching.  Last meeting he was concerned about someone running off in the proposed paved gutter. Now you call a wrecker when you get off the road.

Mr. McLean added that it is all built within the 50’ right-of-way, which is very difficult to do.

Mr. Daniel went on to advise that you leave Osprey Ridge Dr., going up an incline is a vertical curve, and crest of that curve, then back down to a moderate grade to a another vertical at the bottom going back up to the cul-de-sac.  There is an open ditch that feeds from both directions and water has no way out.  Mr. McLean said it is a false ditch. It is there so water can infiltrate.

Mr. Daniel said he thought the result is that it was better if it was left the way that it was.  Mr. McLean agreed that is what he would rather have done.

Mr. Daniel said in areas similar to this trench drains, or french drains, and it is dug is like a drywell. You end up putting fabric in, rock, and a perforated pipe, and it is covered up and you have a connected system.  Here is a false ditch, we have to disconnect the system, deep ditches. He doesn’t know what is to be done with water behind the cul-de-sac.  Normally, you start off at zero at the back of the cul-de-sac and come around and grade down the hill gently and as the catchment area increases and the water runoff increases, the ditch becomes deeper and flows downhill to catch all the water to be caught.

Mr. McLean said he wanted to do that, but was told that he could not do that.

Mr. Daniel said there is no logic to how it is done now.  Mr. McLean said the logic is that it didn’t meet town standards, the ditch had to be 2 ½’ deep all around the cul-de-sac and they don’t have the shoulders.

Mr. Daniel said the ditch produces more of a hazard than it does as a recipient of storm-water runoff.  He did not think that was the way to go with subdivision streets.  Historically, he would say that the street systems in Carteret County there is a narrow ribbon of asphalt spread out over a designated piece of land, and it is called a street.  There is no provision for stormwater except for percolation.  He hopes the town will do better in the future.

Mr. Almeida added that town standards are deficient; they need to be improved upon.

Ms. Erikson asked about the sand that is near the road on the north side.  What will happen to that sand?  Ms. Daisy Spell (owner) responded that that sand is on private property, not a portion of this subdivision.  It will eventually be hauled off. Initially, the town had asked to purchase the sand from them when the subdivision was begun years ago. So they stocked the sand, but the town does not want it now, so it will have to be hauled away; however, it needs a place to be hauled to.

Mr. Daniel said there should now be no problem putting culverts in for driveways now on Christina Drive.

Mr. Almeida said there was some indication of slippage that had been corrected. What has been done to be sure that won’t occur again? The bottom of the road bank was sliding into the pond.  Mr. McLean said they had done some grading and put down riprap. I would hope that is adequate stabilization.

Mr. Almeida said before the town takes over the road he wants to see some verification that this will not occur again.  Mr. McLean said there is a year the developer has to main-taint the road, so that should take care of that. He doesn’t know what kind of assurance that could be given for such a request.  If you put three concrete trucks on the shoulder, it is going to slip.

Ms. Spell added that when the road was initially put it, the riprap was not put on the slope where it is now.  That might have been the reason for some of the slip.

Mr. Almeida said he felt that the fill was resting on loamy or very soft soil. That would tend to yield.  That is what he is leading to. 

He went on to ask when the road north of the pond was built and approval by the town taken for building the road.  Mr. McLean advised this is a private road; there was no sub-division, no division of land. The developers wanted to build the road and they did. 

Ms. Spell advised the members that the whole road was put in at one time for the entire subdivision; however, only a portion has been dedicated to the town, leaving the north loop out of the dedicated streets. 

Mr. Conrad as Public Works Director, advised that he did not remember it being approved.  It was an undivided piece of property that had a road.  As long as it was not divided and platted it did not need to be approved.

Ms. Angus said that as zoning official she saw it comparable to a big driveway. That it is private property.

Mr. Daniel asked what process is to be followed if the street is ever to be dedicated.

Mr. Erwin said that as he understands it is the portion to be dedicated this evening has met the requirements of the town and should be approved, according to town staff.

Mr. Almeida asked if whether anyone from the town has checked out whether the road, as existing now, conforms to town standards.  Mr. Rush said that Mr. Conrad has signed off on the small portion of Osprey Ridge Drive to be dedicated. The portions deemed to be deficient have been covered by a certified check in the amount of $3,000 to cover these improvements.

Mr. Conrad said he had checked the stone dimension both width and depth and the asphalt thickness.  They did not core the previous road under there, but there is more than 1 ½” under there, more like four inches on top  of the old road. 

Mr. Almeida stated there is no question of the new road, he is questioning the existing road that is now being dedicated.

Mr. McLean said he had, since the last meeting, gone back and improved the shoulders, put in riprap, installed silt fences, and repaved.  Mr. Conrad said there is 6” of rock on the road.

Mr. Almeida advised that the variation of the Final Plat from the Preliminary Plat that included the small portion of the Planning Board was not brought to the attention of the planning board.  Mr. Rush replied that the Preliminary Plat was technically approved without showing that portion of Osprey Ridge Drive; however, it was clearly the intent all along, for whatever reason it was not on the preliminary plat.  Because it is essential and you need to have access to a public street for a new subdivision it was suggested that this portion of the street be incorporated into the final plat.  That is reflected on this plat to include two new street segments, one being a small portion of Osprey Ridge Dr. and Christina Drive.

Mr. Almeida said would it not be normal courtesy to ‘flag’ the planning board to indicate the change. He would expect that minimum amount of courtesy being extended to the planning board.  Mr. Rush said he had sent many emails about this project back and forth, if he neglected to mention that particular issue, he apologized and will inform them in the future.

Mr. Almeida said he had three issues to raise.  First, whether Osprey Ridge Dr needs to be brought up to town standards and formally approved. Second, is it a good policy to have part of the loop road kept as a private road? We have had problems recently with no trespassing signs on the property.  Part of the road is private part is public.

Mr. Patteson clarified that it is public up and to the new road they want to dedicate now. You do not have to use the loop to gain access or make it work.  Once this small portion of Osprey Ridge Drive is dedicated there is access.  Now, you have people coming on to a public road, and driving through the loop area on a private road, till they come to Osprey Ridge Bluff which is public again.  Now is there any liability for the town since they haven’t let anybody know that that is a private road.

Mr. Almeida asked if it is a good policy, in general, to have part of a road public and part of the road private?  He asked for comments from the members.

Mr. McLaughlin said it probably should be one or the other.  If they have a private road they can do whatever they want with it.  But to avoid potential problems, it should be one or the other.

Mr. Erwin said he had no problem with the initial consideration simply because if he were a developer and he wanted to dedicate one section; maybe build the road because it is more economical do it all at one time and allow people to drive through and see the property.  He sees no liability for the town. There may be other reasons why there should be an issue with private vs. public.  Certainly, not in this case, because it’s already built.

Mr. Dowling said we have to be careful of the welfare and safety to make recommendations to the board. We have to follow the ordinance. He is concerned with the safety of the road. He did not like the ‘piecemeal’ concept of establishing roads. He does not think it is common to see piecemeal roads delivered to a town. He is concerned about the plat being approved (recommended) to the town board.  What happens when a fracture takes place that is con-tiguous to the town road. Who will repair that?  If you have a washout and the whole road gives out and the whole bank goes. What happens then? People can’t get to their houses.  You’ve got the horse before the buggy in this.  You need the whole road that is next to that pond with the giant banks that was the highest dune in this county that they took out.  We haven’t seen torrential downpours, who’s going to police up all the sand there? The town is going to get stuck doing this. This should be all private or all town ownership.

Mr. Daniel said it is an existing condition and he does not see any measurement of harm. The owner has a right to barricade the street if they chose and close it.  Another option, you have an “in” public street then goes to private property.  You could sign it that it’s the end of a public street.  The part being considered is going to be under the developer for a year.  Or leave it the way it is.  It is not good planning as far as the government entity is concerned, but good plan-ning as far as the owner is concerned.  Where the two meet is the consideration.  The are a lot of subdivisions that are three street subdivisions where one road intersects Emerald Drive you go back and branch off the meets Ocean Drive and Ocean Drive does not connect. You cannot get through without coming back on to the main road. Most municipalities did not allow that to occur, you had continuing connections.  The town must learn to live within the context of the existing conditions that cannot be changed.

Ms. Erikson asked the advantage, to the developer, of having a public and a private street.  Mr. McLean responded that it gives them more options, and keeping the options open; such as,  a gated community, ability to build a road 15 years ago when the price of asphalt was a lot cheaper than now. 

Mr. Almeida returned to a previous issue regarding the street. He looked through the ordinance book and saw on page 1076, ‘final plats shall conform with the preliminary plat as approved’.  He spoke with Mr. Rush about this and he suggested that the plat could be passed, and it would not be infringing on the ordinance. He has no way of making an interpretation on that item.

Mr. Rush said he did discuss this with the town attorney, Derek Taylor, prior to communicat-

ing the idea of including Osprey Ridge Drive on the Final Plat and was advised that the attorney did not have a problem with that.  Mr. Rush checked with the attorney again today and he still did not have a problem with that approach to incorporate the street.

Pat Patteson said one of the things coming out of this is that there are problems with the way past boards had gone about looking at and approving a subdivision.  We are trying to correct those things now. This developer has done what has been asked of him, to try and improve the road.  He has done some things that are not exactly the right way to go, but it’s the way it’s written. So, in order to get this done, they agreed to do it the way it’s written.  There is some ‘housecleaning’ that needs done.  The developer has done what he’s been asked to do.

Mr. McLaughlin said the town has asked them to do a lot and if the town staff has signed off on it and they are content with it then he has no problem with it.

Mr. Erwin said he is impressed with this board’s attention to detail and should help to identify issues to deal with in the future. He is very comfortable with the addition of the road, he feels it is a technical matter that is well within the statutes and seems to comply.  He would like to see the project more forward.

Mr. Dowling said he is uncomfortable with Osprey Ridge Drive.  If that triangle is taken out and left in the hands of the developer without going to the town he would be totally acceptable because he feels they have adjusted to our recommendations. He is not comfortable with piece meal acceptance of roads.  The town is getting into problems with that precedence and the infrastructure that the taxpayers are going to get stuck with.  So he is opposed. That little chunk of land is a heartache next to the pond. With the volume of water that comes off the road from that hill and hits the bottom, is it going to wash out?  All kinds of complications. He thinks it’s a rush-rush project and if it weren’t part of the project he could see voting in favor of it.

Mr Almeida told Mr. Dowling that it must connect to a public road, and Mr. Dowling said he knows that, but he’s not satisfied.

Mr. Daniel said he had no problem with the plat, he doesn’t like the construction.  One year of maintenance will show whatever is going to happen. 

Ms. Erikson asked what the $3,000 would cover?  Mr. Rush said it will pay for the placement of the additional rip-rap on the bank adjacent to the pond 6 to 8 inches above the existing grade of the shoulder of the road; also, the ditch on the west side of Osprey Ridge Dr. is a low depress-soon so they’ve been asked to reshape that ditch.  The total estimated cost to be around $1,500 so the town has requested $3,000.

Mr. Daniel said that stabilization has been added to hopefully to prevent further erosion.  If this is not sufficient they will have to make arrangements to keep it in repair.

Mr. Almeida asked about a date of compliance for this project.  Mr. Rush said it should be in place by the Town Board of Commissioners  meeting in March; but no date has been mentioned.

Mr. Almeida asked for a motion. 

Motion was made by Pat Patteson to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Osprey Bluff Subdivision to the town board.  Second by Art Daniel.  Voting in favor of the motion: Art Daniel, Ann Erikson, George McLaughlin, Pat Patteson, and Frank Erwin.  Opposed: Ed Dowling.

for government surplus on the west side of Islander Drive adjacent to the West End Regional

park near Islander Motor Inn.  Ms. O’Connor said that U-Haul had contacted her about hand-

ing their trucks. 

There was some discussion regarding the pros and cons of the issue including the issue that

there seems to be sufficient locations on the mainland to accommodate the citizens of Emerald

Isle.  Ms. O’Connor mentioned that U-Haul reimburses the town 1% of the cost to the town.

The members felt that the use was not necessary since it was available nearby, and that the

large trucks and trailers would not be something that would enhance the town commercial corridor since the use could not be contained to just Ms. O’Connor’s property.  There was

concern about it being, in this instance, adjacent to the entrance to the regional park.

Mr. Erwin said he could not recommend the use unless it were a Special Use with specific

standards.  Mr. Dowling said he felt they would have to be a special use as well as inside a building.  Ms. Erikson said she saw nothing to be gained by the town and would be very

unattractive. Mr. Daniel said he was not aware of any vehicle rental lots that made only a limited number of vehicles available and would prefer not to see them here.

Motion was made by Ann Erikson to recommend to deny the request, second by Frank Erwin with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

6.      Rezoning Request from B-3 (Commercial) to RMF (Residential/Multi-family) portion of
Block 42, parallel with Crew Dr. and adjacent to Hwy 58.

This item was asked by the applicant to be tabled until a later date.  Mr. Almeida wanted

 applicant to briefly describe the property and then refer to the “attached” portion of the  

 application rather than to see it blank.  His concern was that anything might be attached.

7.      Discussion w/possible recommendation regarding removal of Townhouse/Condominiums From Mobile Home 1 (MH1).

Chairman Almeida said there is a memo that looks at the density angle of this issue from the number of bedrooms standpoint comparing mobile homes to condos or townhouses. He felt that if there are multi-family units for vacation homes the density would be much higher compared to a mobile home.

Ms. Georgia Murray said she felt Mr. Almeida’s view was incorrect.  The multi-unit condos have 2 bedrooms and 2 baths. Most of her mobile home owners have 3 bedrooms and 2 baths.

This would accommodate more density with mobile homes.

Mr. Patteson said the issue of density issue would require three mobile home lots to put in a duplex. He felt the impervious issue would be better served with the duplex than with the three mobile homes. There would be less street (driveway) area and would possibly look better. Not everybody and afford, or wants, a single family home, so to have a condo or townhouse would be a nice for them.

Mr. McLaughlin said the density issue is a non-issue. There is no real way to figure it out.  He doesn’t think it really makes any difference.  He agreed with Mr. Patteson, but duplexes in some areas may make the town look a little nicer.  He compared Forest Hills MHP to areas where there are older mobile homes and that a duplex might be preferable to the old mobile homes.

Mr. Erwin referred to the town survey taken some months ago that the residents wanted to discourage townhouses and condominium development. He would prefer to limit what can go into this zoning on a case by case basis.

Mr. Dowling is not in favor of fast track development in which you use duplex and townhouses to achieve the end. He is in favor a family beach concept with stick built single-family dwellings. He noted that the mobile home has no real estate tax, it is personal property.  The owner of the land is the one taxed for the property.  He thinks we have to look at the rate we are going and the direction we are going.

Mr. Daniel said it is premature to make changes in permitted uses without having an updated Land Use Plan of the comprehensive plan. He does not think the uses are compatible. He would prefer waiting for the update than make piece by piece changes. There is a lot of acreage to be considered where the parks are located that we need to be looking as such mixed use.  Zoning should support land use.

Ms. Erikson said she too had referred to the survey and that is whom she thinks we should listen to.  There is no doubt that the town does not want this.  She had concerns about how the 1993 went from a Special use to a permitted use, making reference to the minutes of that meeting.  Mr. Rush said it was adopted as a Permitted Use in 1993.  Ms. Erikson said there is a lack of continuity between the minutes and the table that should be straightened out. She asked that if the ordinance were to be changed to eliminate these uses what the owners could do to make such a request.  She was advised that a zoning change would be required at that time.  She then replied that she would prefer that townhouses and condominiums not be allowed in MH1.

There was further conversation between several of the members of pros and cons of issue.

Each reiterated the point that they had previously made.  Mr. Dowling did add that he feels the town needs an engineer that can give the board the parameters of are to be followed.

            Mr. Dowling made the motion to remove townhouses and condominiums from Mobile Home 1 (MH1) as a permitted use, second by Frank Erwin.  Those in favor of the motion were: Ann Erikson, Frank Erwin, and Ed Dowling; those opposed: Pat Patteson, Art Daniel and George McLaughlin.  Chairman Almeida voted in favor of the motion to remove the use from the table resulting in a vote of 4 to 3 to remove townhouses and condominiums from the permitted use table.

8.      Discussion regarding removal of private streets from Commercial projects; and a change in The right-of-way  width for private streets.

Mr. Almeida referred to the ordinance book regarding street design standards.  The right-of-way  is shown as 40’ with 5’ utility easement. Utility easements are usually for utility placement not for stormwater. To follow the town standards from central ditch to central ditch we need 44 feet.  His suggestion is to widen the right-of-way  from 40’ to 50’ with no easement.

Mr. Daniel asked what is the distance of the centerline of the ditch to the top of the back slope?

Mr. Almeida replied that based on town standards you need another 12 feet.

Mr. Daniel said he would rather see 55’ or 60’, unless you have curb and gutter then you can lessen an area. As far as stormwater in a utility easement, he sees no problem with that.  Some places do tax stormwater managing, considering stormwater as a utility. 

Mr. Patteson said he thought 55’ is agreeable.  He went on to ask if private streets were being done away with in private subdivisions.  Mr. Almeida said this consideration is not for private subdivisions only for commercial areas.

There was conversation between Mr. Almeida and Mr. Daniel concerning some technical consid-erations.  Most concerning the widths of right-of-way  and what to be contained within, i.e. bike paths.

Mr. McLaughlin said that whatever width is determined it should be for both private and public streets. Then if a private subdivision wanted to turn their streets over to the town the road will be ready and will meet standards.  They mirror each other.

Mr. Erwin said he has run into this issue many times in his profession. Homeowners associations want to give the road over and no one will take it because of problems.  Nonetheless, he believes there is a place for private streets, not that they have to meet the same width of public streets.  He would not say that all streets need to be the same standard. He would be happy to support what is the appropriate width of a public street.

Mr. Dowling said he is opposed to a private streets, he lives on one and there have been many problems. He is in favor of 55’ right-of-way; however, he realizes that is more of an impervious area and he does not like to see that. He is in favor of only public streets.

Mr. Daniel made the motion to recommend a minimum width for public street right-of-way  to 55’, which will provide a 20’ paved surface, 6’ shoulder on each side, and 12’ of ditching and a foot left over.  Second to the motion was George McLaughlin.  All members voted in favor of the motion with the exception of Mr. Erwin who abstained, which made it a unanimous decision.

The board them moved on to private streets. 

Mr. Daniel said he wanted to refer back to Mr. Erwin’s previous remark about seeing a need for lesser width in a private subdivision.  He leans toward the principle that anything being built to meet municipal standards so that there would be no cloud as to whether it does or does not meet the requirement. The developer should be able to build a gated community and submit a proposal of less than 55 feet.  When you consider impervious you have to also think about, not only the street, but also the driveway at each lot. He didn’t know how it would be worded to allow a lesser amount. 

Mr. Erwin asked if this might be handled through a Special Use Permit?  Mr. Rush said he did not know whether this type of request could be done as a Special Use.  He does not think you could, but he does not know for sure.

Ms. Erikson asked why you would have two sets of standards, one for private and one for public?

She felt all streets should be the same.

Mr. Daniel attempted to answer this to explain that when you take a parcel of land that has fixed boundaries, and you try to lay out a street system, access to lots, and you get yourself constricted with a 55’ right-of-way  vs. 40’ right-of-way.  You could have one less street. You have a physical restraint.

Ms. Erikson said the same thing can happen to a public street, so what’s the difference.  To her a standard is a standard.

Mr. Daniel said that if the town had a transportation plan, there would be provisions for bikeways and walkways, and signalization and future planning for land use in the mix. 

Mr. Rush said if the right-of-way standards for private streets were to be relaxed you will need to relax the standards in terms of the width of the shoulder and depth of ditches to make it fit within the right-of-way.

Mr. Patteson said a smaller road in a community makes more sense to use more of the land.  When you have a gated community and you need enough participation to enable the streets to be main-tained. If there is no control then it does become a problem and to have those streets conform to the rest of the town streets, unless there is something to back up  the ability to finance maintenance on the roads in the future, then the town is leaving itself wide open.

Mr. Almeida said he thought a private organization must take care of their streets. Mr. Patteson said that does not mean anything. There are several communities that looked around and found there was no money being set aside for such uses and then began organizing.

Mr. Daniel said with 20’ pavement and 6’ shoulders would be 32’, then the option could be, to use underground drainage system.  The plat before them earlier could have squared off the ditches and put in fabric and laid rock and pipe to have the system run all the way to the pond. To allow the placement of an adequate drainage system within the area.  Then you would not need all that, maybe with 8’ less. That would put the burden on the developer to spend additional funds to take care of the drainage.

Mr. Almeida said that it works in areas where ditches lead to a pond, and rivers, and ultimately to a lake, we do not have that luxury.  Mr. Daniel said we are similar to south Florida, or southern North Carolina you put enough capacity in the system to take care of the normal runoff.  They must be cleaned out due to sediment.  This should be allowed in gated communities and maintained by the homeowners on private streets.  That could accommodate a 50’ street system right-of-way  to comply with minimum standards. Then, instead of an open ditch, you could contain a system which could be curb and gutter or trench drains.

Mr. McLaughlin said he still went along with the standards being the same both for private and public streets. There are fewer problems.

Mr. Almeida reiterated what should be the standard right-of-way  for private streets? 

Mr. Erwin said the only thing he knew about the width of streets is what his Daddy told him,

and that was to stay between the ditches.  Beyond that he did not want to comment.

Mr. Dowling said he supports the 55’ width. 

Mr. Daniel said we still must address a street system that will convey the stormwater to a desirable destination.

Mr. Patteson said he felt the Osprey Bluff S/D had been handled poorly in regard to stormwater and drainage.  This is an instance where the town should have an engineer on staff.  We should not be “throwing bandages” at people at the time of completion.  He felt that the fault with that sub-division was probably a 50/50 for developer and town.

Mr. Conrad, Public Works Director, was in attendance and asked to make some comments. He advised that when the previous form of government there was in place with the Town Administrator which did not allow staff input.  Prior to that type of government was no staff, only a police department.  So when the town administrator type government adopted the streets standards this is what was adopted. Over the years the state has changed their standards. The town has made a few changes, one being widening the shoulder to try to improve the strength of the shoulder. Also, to narrow the right-of-way in private subdivisions to accommodate development. One thing you have not touched on as yet, no matter what you do, after a street is accepted and lots sold, the new owners put in driveways and fill in the culverts and wipe out the drainage system.  You need to begin with a new sheet of paper.  Then discuss it and adopt all new standards. He felt the town can get by on something less than 55 feet, because you are looking at a 3:1 forward and back slope. On the forward slope you need 3:1, on the back can be less.  If you make a uniform specification, you hand it to a developer and say this is the way it has got to be done. It will make his job easier and this board’s job easier. On the other hand, the same situation could occur when you do it by specs and doing it the way you want to do it, creates problems.  What you have at Osprey Bluff is less desirable than what had been installed and made to change.

Mr. Almeida said town standards should have been changed long ago, and pointed out to Mr. Conrad that he could have initiated that himself.  Mr. Conrad reiterated that he thinks the board should begin from a “clean sheet of paper” and specify what the town wants done.

Mr. Almeida said there was another issue he did not like which is that the ditch depth is to be 2’6” and he suggests making it 1’ 6” and let the designer design the plan.  He felt 2’6” is overkill.

Mr. Daniel advised, returning to street widths, they have not yet discussed cul-de-sacs, you have a different right-of-way  situation there than you do on a standard width street. 

Mr. Almeida said he would deal with cul-de-sacs later, we cannot deal  with everything now.

Chairman Almeida then returned to the issue private streets. Mr. McLaughlin immediately made the following motion:

George McLaughlin made the motion that private streets have a right-of-way  of 55 feet.  Second by Ed Dowling.  Vote in favor of the motion: George McLaughlin, Ed Dowling, Art Daniel, Ann Erikson, Pat Patteson; opposed, Frank Erwin.

At this point Chairman Almeida reminded the members that the CAMA District Regional Manager, Ted Tyndall, would be coming to our review committee  meeting on Wednesday, February 27 at 3:00 for a presentation his agency’s responsibilities and requirements.

Chairman Almeida then reverted to “the removal of private streets from commercial projects”.

There was discussion of the safety and policing issues of private streets in a commercial district. Ms. Erikson said she was not in favor of private streets in commercial subdivisions.

Mr. Daniel advised the board that the advantage to the developer of not having a private street is the high cost of maintenance vs. no maintenance of public street.

There was discussion regarding the policing the signs and parking within a private commercial subdivision. There was some disagreement as to whether this could be carried out.  The Police Chief had previously stated that his force was not able to write citations on private property.

George McLaughlin made the motion to remove private streets from commercial projects; second by Ed Dowling.  In favor of the motion: Ann Erikson, Ed Dowling, George McLaughlin; those opposed, Art Daniel, Pat Patteson and Frank Erwin.  This being a vote of three in favor and three opposed, Chairman Almeida voted in favor of the motion to remove private streets from commercial projects.

9.      Mr. Dowling advised that the Dunes & Vegetation Ordinance Revision Committee would be meeting at 10:00 AM March 04, 2002.  He hopes to have the final draft available March 25, 2002.

10.   Rules of Procedure for Planning Board.  It was decided to discuss this item at review committee  on   February 27^th.

11.   Committee for Revision of Subdivision Ordinance – Chairman Almeida asked Mr. Daniel to chair the revision of this chapter.  Chairman Almeida said he would like to do this chapter in two phases. Some of the issues need to be addressed immediately in the first phase, to come back to this board in three months. Then go back through the ordinance more closely.  Mr. Patteson and Mr. Almeida will also serve on this committee.

Mr. Rush asked to make a comment on behalf of Carol Angus and himself. There are quite a few projects on the table that are planning related and other town projects. He asked for a more generous schedule. There is the ongoing Stormwater Ordinance; the improvements to the development review process; revision of the dunes and vegetation ordinance.  He is getting a little concerned about both Carol’s and his own work load in the coming loads.  He wants to help the board to accomplish these things, but be mindful of our limitations.

Chairman Almeida said he would reduce Mr. Rush and Ms. Angus’ workload to hold the initial meetings without either of these people. When the committee gets close to the final stages then Mr. Rush and Ms. Angus to become involved.  Mr. Almeida then asked if four months would be better?

Mr. Rush said his belief is that staff should be involved from the beginning on any committee.  We are ultimately the people who need to enforce and administer the ordinances and it is important to have staff input during the process.  He is not sure that four months is that much better than three. He is concerned about the items “on our plate” right now and it continues to grow every day and we are only human.

Mr. Almeida said this may be the case to be made for additional staff.  He wants to look at the major changes that need be made in the subdivision.  He does not want to put it off.  He used the example of the stormwater ordinance in being a year in approval.  In the meantime, there would be subdivisions being submitted. 

Mr. Rush added that the subdivision ordinance is such an important ordinance, ideally, he would rather see a land use plan update done before the subdivision ordinance.  That is not realistic, it’s not going to happen for a couple years. This is something that maybe should be investigated through consultants. He and Ms. Angus are both working under a burden right now and by adding the subdivision ordinance now will make that worse.  He wants to do a good job, and when you have a lot heaped on you it is harder to do a quality job.

Mr. Almeida said he wants to do the minimum revisions now, major revisions can wait until the staff is available.  Ms. Angus said she would like to see the four months rather than three.

Mr. Daniel said he has conditions on his accepting the chairman position.  He wants to include an an engineer, surveyor, developer to serve with the committee.  This suggestion met with approval.

Mr. Daniel said he wanted input from the private sector, and to have Mr. Erwin sit in to advise from a legal perspective.  Mr. Erwin said he would be glad to do that.

Mr. Daniel said he would like to see the ordinances from Kitty Hawk, Buxton, Corolla as communities on barrier islands.

Chairman Almeida reiterated that, at this time, deal only with the major issues, things that can be done quickly.

Motion to adjourn was made by George McLaughlin, second by Pat Patteson with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

Respectfully submitted:

Carol Angus, Secretary
Planning/Zoning/Inspections